Syria and Lebanon: The withdrawal
- In April 2005, Syria complied with UN resolution 1559 and withdrew its forces from Lebanon four days ahead of the UN's April 30 deadline. Resolution 1559 (which makes no explicit mention of Syria, but calls for “the withdrawal of all non-Lebanese forces from Lebanon”) was adopted in September 2004, cosponsored by the unlikely duo of the US and France. The withdrawal appears to have gone smoothly. After a UN team was sent to verify the withdrawal, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan concluded on May 25 2005 that “we have verified all have withdrawn, including the border area.” See:
http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/news_service/middle_east_full_story.asp?service_id=8170
Furthermore, Lebanese parliament speaker Nabih Berri said on October 11, 2005, that since the withdrawal, “there is no longer Syrian interference in Lebanon at all.”
- Troops were originally deployed to Lebanon in 1976 to try to end the civil war. They remained there with the support of successive Lebanese governments after the war, and under the terms of the Ta’if Accord, the Arab League agreement that ended the war and which was ratified by the Lebanese Parliament in 1989. The full text is available at:
www.al-bab.com/arab/docs/lebanon/taif.htm
- Israel’s 1982 invasion and subsequent occupation of southern Lebanon provided a strong reason for Syria’s continued presence in the country. This reason finally disappeared in 2000 following Israel’s withdrawal, and Syrian troop numbers were systematically reduced. But many observers and Lebanese themselves feared that a full Syrian withdrawal would destabilise the country and lead to a resurgence of ethnic conflict. See the article by Martha Kessler in The Los Angeles Times, 1 November 2004, ‘Danger in Pushing Syria Out of Lebanon: Western Diplomatic Initiatives Could Go Horribly Awry’:
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/lebanon/2004/1101awry.htm
- At the time of writing, it is too early to see what effect the Syrian withdrawal will have on Lebanon, although the recent spate of bombs is a worrying sign.
- It was the assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq al-Hariri that provided the US with the pretext for upping the pressure on Syria. The assassination itself remains a puzzle: no consensus, let alone proof, as to who perpetrated it have been forthcoming. The UN is conducting an enquiry. See ‘Hariri murder comes under fresh scrutiny from UN special team’:
www.guardian.co.uk/syria/story/0,13031,1455507,00.html
- Nevertheless, Israel and the US, not worried by this absence of evidence, immediately blamed Syria. It must be stressed that there is currently no proof of Syrian involvement, and no Syrian suspect has been identified by the UN probe, with which Syria has vowed to cooperate. “Syria will…extend all possible facilities to the international commission of inquiry,” said the official news agency SANA on September 11, 2005. “It is in the interests of Syria to reach the truth on the crime of Rafiq Hariri’s assassination.”
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has vowed that any national implicated by the UN probe would be severely punished as a traitor. “They should be punished…If they are not punished internationally they will be punished in Syria,” he told CNN on 12 October 2005. Assassinating al-Hariri “is against our principles and my principle,” he added. “I would never do such a thing in my life. What do we achieve? We would not do it. It is against our interests and against my principles. I would never do it. It is impossible.”
Despite much strong anti-Syrian sentiment in Lebanon, Syria did (and does) enjoy popular support. The simplistic impression is often given in the Western media that Lebanese society was united in its opposition to the Syrian presence, and that Syria had invaded and was illegally occupying Lebanon. Neither of these points are correct. See the remarks in Flynt Leverett’s new book ‘Inheriting Syria’, p. 111: “Syria will likely continue to enjoy the support of a considerable swath of Lebanese society for its foreign policy prerogatives. The counterdemonstration on March 8, 2005, called for by Nasrallah [Secretary General of Hizballah] and attended by an estimated half million people provides evidence for the demographic weight of Syria’s supporters in Lebanon, especially among the Shi’a community.” Available at:
www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0815752040/qid%3D1117569879/202-2537236-0023837
- The plight of huge numbers of Syrian workers living in Lebanon has gone largely unreported in the Western media. Many were forced to flee in the spring of 2005 amid anti-Syrian feelings in some quarters of Lebanese society, stoked up by yet unproven American accusations against Syria. See the public statement of Amnesty International, published on 21 April 2005, entitled ‘Lebanon: Stop attacks on Syrian workers and bring perpetrators to justice’:
“Amnesty International is very concerned at reports that tens of Syrian workers have been killed and scores of others beaten, shot, threatened or robbed in Lebanon since the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq al-Hariri on 14 February 2005. Amnesty International calls for an immediate end to this wave of xenophobic attacks.... It is believed that many of the killings occurred in cases when assailants set fire to tents or other temporary housing of the workers, or after workers were taken to secluded areas in anticipation of work. In addition, Amnesty International was informed that in late February in ‘Aramoun, to the south of Beirut, two Syrians were killed when they were taken up to a four-storey building and thrown off the roof. On 19 March in Beirut’s southern suburb of Ghobeiri two Syrian men were reportedly stabbed to death by a mob of assailants who then fled the scene. Two other killings of Syrians occurred on 9 and 12 March in Tyre and Tariq Jdeide in Beirut respectively...” From:
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE180042005?open&of=ENG-LBN
On July 21, 2005, Syrian Labour Minister Diala Haje-Aref said 37 of her citizens working in Lebanon had been deliberately killed and 280 wounded since the assassination. Among the injured, 150 are "handicapped for life," she said, adding that workers were "unjustly thrown out of their jobs, even though their papers were in order." See:
http://www.arabmediawatch.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2908
- It is often claimed that that the Lebanese resistance group Hezbollah is a Syrian stooge. This is untrue. Syria’s relationship with Hezbollah is complex: like most of the Arab people, Syria supported Hezbollah’s efforts to get Israel to abandon its illegal occupation of southern Lebanon, but Syria remains a vehemently secular regime which is uncomfortable with Hezbollah’s religious ideology. Referring to Syrian and Iranian influence on the movement, Adam Shatz in ‘The New York Review of Books’ of April 2004, argues that Hezbollah Secretary General Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah has achieved “a significant degree of autonomy from both parties.” He suggests that Bashar Al-Asad depends more on Nasrallah’s endorsement than Nasrallah does on his support. See:
http://www.mafhoum.com/press7/190P8.htm
- Hezbollah enjoys popular support not only for its decisive role in forcing the Israeli withdrawal of 2000, but also for the range of social, educational, healthcare and welfare services it provides. It vehemently denies claims that it is funded by either Syria or Iran. Most recently Abdallah Safieddine, Hezbollah's Tehran-based envoy, declared that “both countries' support was political and moral and that neither Tehran nor Damascus would decide the future of his movement.” See:
http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=9092
Furthermore, during Israel's 2006 invasion of Lebanon, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in July said there was no evidence linking Syria and Iran to Hezbollah's attacks on Israel. "I have heard this speculation. I have also heard speculation that Syria and Iran are involved in staging terrorist attacks. We take this very seriously, but we want to see facts. Whenever we ask for facts, there are not too many, if any," Lavrov told CNN's Late Edition program.
"We would be last to ignore the facts of this type of involvement. But so far we have not seen any proof." He added: "Hezbollah and Hamas have some of their leaders living in Syria. Therefore, of course Syrians do talk to them...and can exert some influence on them...but do not forget that Hezbollah is a Lebanese phenomenon. It is not an imported product."
Indeed, the Los Angeles Times reported that US officials have "declined to offer specific evidence of Iranian or Syrian involvement," and in the same article an anonymous Israeli official admitted that "I don't have evidence that there were direct instructions."
Wayne White, who was a senior official in the State Department's intelligence arm until 2005, has said it would be an overstatement to say Hezbollah is a "pawn" of Iran.
And Robert Malley, special assistant to President Clinton for Arab-Israeli issues and director of the Near East and North Africa programme for the International Crisis Group in Washington, says: "I think there's more local autonomy, a greater degree of local decision-making, than people give credit for."
Even the US State Department's 2006 report on terrorism admits that Hezbollah "can and does act independently."
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-hezbollah14jul14,1,808614.story?coll=la-headlines-world&ctrack=1&cset=true
Besides, one can argue that with billions of dollars a year in US military, economic and political support for Israel, what is wrong with Hezbollah receiving support?
- Despite its rhetoric about democracy in the Middle East, the US continues to ignore the electoral legitimacy bestowed upon Hezbollah by the Lebanese people, and continues to pressure the EU to list it as a terrorist organisation, which it has refused to do. In the 2005 Lebanese parliamentary elections, Hezbollah and its ally Amal took all 23 seats in the south, gaining 35 of 128 seats in parliament. Hezbollah itself has 14 seats in parliament. Its deputy secretary-general, Naim al-Qassem, described the sweeping victory as a "referendum on the popularity of the resistance and rejection of foreign interference in Lebanon's internal affairs.” See ‘Hizb Allah: Foreign pressure rebuffed’ at:
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/096A65F0-1EB4-432E-B091-A2BBE8997375.htm
In fact the elections resulted, for the first time, in Hezbollah's representation in Lebanon's cabinet, with two members. Muhammad Fneish, the country’s energy minister, responded aptly to the US refusal to deal with any Hezbollah representative in Lebanon's government: "Our presence in government is an affair that concerns the Lebanese people, and US intervention…goes against democracy." See:
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/38FD8B8D-F882-4EE1-883D-0EC5E0C83726.htm
- One further issue of contention is the Sheba’a Farms, an area seized by Israel in 1967 along with the Golan Heights. It is unambiguously considered Syrian territory by the UN, but Lebanese territory by Hezbollah, having been ceded to Lebanon by Syria. For a profile of the area, see:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/763504.stm
Press reports continue to refer to the area as ‘disputed’ (for example the BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4634647.stm.) It is not. The Israeli government’s own Foreign Ministry website makes it explicit that it is not Israeli territory: “The Shebaa Farms area is not, and should not be, considered disputed territory…The United Nations views the Shebaa Farms area as Syrian territory.” See ‘The Legal Status of the Shabaa Farms’:
http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/about%20the%20ministry/ mfa%20spokesman/2002/the%20legal%20status%20of%20the %20shabaa%20farms%20-%208-apr-2002
- Syria and its supporters once again note the hypocrisy of US dealings with the region. Syria quickly honoured the UN resolution for it to withdrawal from Lebanon. Israel, on the other hand, has consistently ignored the various UN resolutions demanding its withdrawal from the Occupied Palestinian Territories and Syria’s Golan Heights with impunity.
- Furthermore, US President George Bush said in March 2005: “I don’t think you can have free elections with the Syrian troops there.”
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&categ_id=2&article_id=13191
This despite Palestinians and Iraqis having to vote under occupation.